What a meaningless reply. I’ll add my own.
MFW I edit my comment after the fact to try to win the online argument.
2 Likes
After checking the sources further there are two tests using Spitfire J.L.165 here.
- Tests by Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment
- Tests by Rolls Royce.
The tests by the “A.& A.E.E.” were conducted with a weight of 7400 lbs, while those of Rolls Royce were conducted with a weight of 7234 lbs.
The values of the “A.& A.E.E.” are unsurprisingly lower (5080 ft/min, 25.8 m/s, at sea level, on the low altitude “Moderate Supercharger” gear, with full throttle), not only because of the increased weight, but also because climb rate tests were ran with fully open radiators.
However, in section 4.4, they use test results conducted by different groups, not only to compare different aircraft (a Spitfire Mk VIII tested by Vickers Armstrongs Ltd.) but also different tests done with Spitfire J.L.165, directly comparing the results obtained by Rolls Royce and the “A.& A.E.E.”.
The agreement between the Rolls-Royce and A.& A.E.E. performance figures is quite reasonable though the speeds particularly are much lower than those obtained by Messrs. Vickers Armstrong on the other aircraft.
The full report of the Rolls Royce tests includes a table which directly states 5740 ft/min climb rate at sea level. As we already know, the Rolls Royce tests were conducted with 7234 lbs of weight, and closed radiators.
The graph is provided at the end of the report and is easy to understand.
Each square is equal to 20 ft/min of climb (climb rate values come in intervals of 200 ft/min, with 10 squares between them).
So the graph also shows 5740 ft/min of climb rate at sea level.
7 Likes
Nah not this guy again ;)
Dont ruin it before i get to spade it
2 Likes
Yet he brings real, reputable sources. As usual, you bring nothing but unbased claims.
1 Like
@PercussionCap You responded to the wrong post.
His post misrepresented the sources in his post, sources I myself cite.
Wrong weight for the tests with parameters, used parameters from a graph without testing standards… or worse testing standards from one of the two articles.
So yeah, just cause his post made unbased claims doesn’t mean everyones’ did.
Keep claiming the sources are wrong, PercussionCap.
All you do is prove my posts correct.
Nope, as FlipAllTheTables put it, his claims are in line with the test.
“all up weight” matches what he tested with.
Prove that graph has parameters such as but not limited to radiator position, and prove that Blitz used those parameters.
The IRL test was with radiators closed. If OP also tested with radiators closed, the best case scenario for this, then the LF Mk IX is STILL significantly overperforming.
If OP had the radiators open, obviously then the climb rate achieved would be lower than if they were closed, and the LF Mk IX is overperforming even more.
2 Likes
There is no citation for the definition of all up weight.
Currently there are no citations for War Thunder’s pilot and ammunition mass regarding Spitfire LF Mk9.
And without citations, you must use the data available.
He’s objectively running the aircraft lighter.
Someone gave a claim without evidence of pilot mass.
58kg of the 50 cal LF Mk9 is allegedly ammo.
22.67 is liquids unless I find evidence water is separate from oil.
2960kg is empty weight.
3040.67kg.
241kg is missing, and there’s no citation of War Thunder’s pilot mass.
I’m going to run empty guns in one of my tests and add on the 58kg as fuel, just to remove a potential variable.
We still don’t have pilot weight though.
Let’s use the tools that WarThunder provides us.
That’s with 25 minutes of fuel. 3287 kg of weight.
In other words, you’re wrong.
3 Likes
Prove that we’re all wrong.
All you’re doing is proving me and everyone else correct.
“All up” implies that’s what it took off with, so pilot is accounted for. Otherwise there is no point to recording this data if you’re not gonna use a real configuration.
He isn’t, that’s the weight they tested the aircraft at, and is the same standard that has been used in many bug reports - graph says X weight, you test it at X weight. From there it doesn’t really matter where your weight comes from, just that it’s there.
Who is “everyone else” here?
1 Like
Keep dreaming and believe what you want to believe.
The WarThunder localhost says that the Spitfire LF Mk.IX with 25 minutes of fuel weights almost exactly 7234 lbs. It’s actually slightly higher, but only by a meaningless amount, and yet achieves higher performance than what is stated in the source.
BTW it is over-performing, and I used full-fuel to prove it:
@FlipAllTheTables
Keep claiming Blitz and I are wrong.
This is why I asked for full fuel BTW, it makes it far more obvious and there’s no chance of error.
2 Likes
3281 kg of weight is achieved with 51% of fuel. Just about 24 minutes.
1 Like
OP states in his original comment that the LF Mk.IX with 25 minutes of fuel weights 3288 kg (works out because multiple percentages of fuel can give 25 minutes), being slightly overweight for the test yet still performing better than the test.
Stop coping. Only you are wrong.
1 Like
So I’m wrong for saying and proving that Spitfire LF Mk9 is overperforming…
lol lmao even.
Sorry, but Spitfire LF Mk9 is overperforming no matter how much you tell us we’re wrong.
My dude is actually putting words into people’s mouths for the sake of an internet argument.
It’s not even worth it at this point.
6 Likes
No one’s putting words in your mouth.
I’m criticizing your post, you are not your post.
Not even sure why you’re arguing…
Do you agree with us that Spitfire LF Mk9 is overperforming or not?
“I’m not putting words into your mouth, I’m putting words into your post”
MFW.
1 Like